Should unbelievers be punished? Why?

[unknown soldier]

Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim? In what way is skepticism regarding the claims of Christ morally wrong?

[unknown soldier]

Well, actually you substituted spurious for baloney and I said punishment was acceptable. In translation a variety of words can typically be used. Punishment is acceptable perhaps, but cutting off is more accurate in two different contexts that I considered. Punishment, and torment can be translated from a word that can also mean "jailer." When you and I associate torment with a jailer we may not think the same thing. Complicate that with a couple thousand years and a different language and that's why theists like to look at different variations of words. Torment in hell may mean to you the devil with a pitchfork but the Bible writers meant everlasting cutting off which is the alternative to everlasting life. To some punishment fits with their idea of God punishing the wicked but what exactly is the punishment isn't established in the case we first examined. Cutting off is the punishment. The question is, why? So I explained briefly the meaning of the Bible. I could put that into an archaic expression that you would be familiar with. One bad apple spoils the barrel. From the 1340 expression "A rotten apple quickly infects its neighbor." Language is cool.

Do you apologists ever get cramps in your fingers doing all that typing? With such lengthy responses to questions and criticisms, it's no wonder that so many people are confused by the Bible and Christian theology especially when any Christian can come up with an explanation that may contradict what other Christians say or even what the Bible says.

And what exactly is this "cutting off"?

Tormented ... tormented ... where have I heard that before. Gehenna, refuse dump ....

One possibility is that you may have read Luke 16:23:

In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.

According to the gospel story, Jesus told his followers that rich people would be tormented in a "flame" in hell. Do you disagree with Jesus?

Did you know that hell is thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation?

Revelation 20:14 mentions that "Hades" was cast into the lake of fire. The writer of Revelation was personifying Hades, the abode of the dead in Greek mythology.

You didn't read my post on hell, did you?

No--not yet anyway.

You are substituting the word belief with see?

I don't understand this question.

You know all living things eventually die and stay dead? That must have required a great deal of research in the past, present and future ... or belief.

I can see that dead things stay dead. It's obvious and ubiquitous.

So far I'm $900 ahead of you.

I don't know about you, but many Christians no doubt have shelled out far more that $900 to their churches. A tithe being ten percent of a person's annual income would be $4,000 for anybody making $40,000 per year. That church revenue is tax free and as far as I know no church needs to disclose where that money is going.

So this easy money no doubt explains why Christians are taught to have faith and why unbelief is condemned. If people think freely, they may see through the scam.

[DavidLeon]

Not, every human being believes in what they want to believe

Another new voice! Welcome to the forum, Princess!

I can argue for either side being universal. You can't believe something to be true if you think it isn't and you can't believe something to be false if you think it isn't but you can want to believe either. If your dear friend is reported to have done something bad which is contrary to your knowledge and experience with them you can't believe it because you don't want to. Conversely if your sworn enemy is reported to have done something good which is contrary to your knowledge and experience with them you can't believe it because you don't want to. If you switch it around you can change the scenario so that you can believe it because you want to.

But also if you want to believe in something you are more prone to lean in that direction. If you want to believe the world is a wretched place controlled by evil powers your knowledge and experience will naturally be inclined to that conclusion. If you want to believe there is hope in this world and we can fix all of the problems then you will naturally be inclined to that very different conclusion. Once you've made a choice it isn't likely that you will easily change it and everything you perceive will reflect that in your leanings.

I think every human being believes what they want to believe but a very few will look at both possibilities and reflect that in their leaning. Even those of us (I like to think myself included, yes I see the possible irony) who are constantly aware of our own strengths and weaknesses as well as the strengths and weaknesses of any of those possibilities and try to adjust their leaning accordingly so as not to be an ideologue are subject to this flaw.

Put simply, we have to constantly guard ourselves from not seeing only what we want to see. From believing what we only want to believe. Even if we say we have no choice, which we actually don't. We create the illusion of a choice that reflects what we want to see in our own way and it is that illusion which we operate on.

[DavidLeon]

Why think of it as punishment? If someone shows up to your house and says there's a horrible storm coming but if you want and you behave well, you can come with them and be saved from the storm and you say, nah. When the storm takes you out is that the person who invited you punishing you? No. That's you getting what you wanted, which wasn't what you thought it was.

You have not taken into account the narrative that the "horrible storm" is an artificial one, created for the purpose of taking those out for failing to take up the invitation, as opposed to a natural even. In that context, such a storm would be indeed a punishment. It's the difference between "don't touch the oven or you will burn your hand" and "don't touch the oven or I will burn your hand."

Well . . . true, but we are talking to atheists so my illustration was from the perspective of them. If the guy showing up with the invitation is only a messenger (believer) then the householder (atheist) is going to demand to see the guy (God) who sent the messenger, once reporting back to the guy he is going to tell the messenger to tell the householder that if he doesn't trust the messenger he sent then he can take a hike.

Still, that doesn't address the question of punishment. For that I would say a father has many sons and offers to give land to the ones that will take proper care of it but refuses the land to the ones that wouldn't. Is that punishment? I suppose it is, but I was only asking why think of it as punishment because there is a reason for it. It isn't arbitrary punishment by a sky tyrant king just for the sake of punishment itself.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #24]

The result is based on trusting the right guy based on assertions and feelings, it correlate very well with where and when one is born, that's arbitrary in my book.

[DavidLeon]

Do you apologists ever get cramps in your fingers doing all that typing? With such lengthy responses to questions and criticisms, it's no wonder that so many people are confused by the Bible and Christian theology especially when any Christian can come up with an explanation that may contradict what other Christians say or even what the Bible says.

Do you skeptics ever get tired of whining and complaining and blaming your inability to comprehend on everyone but yourselves? Oh, wah! You had to read. You're not going to find a "Bible for dummies" that gives you all the answers you want to hear . . . wait a minute, there is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Never mind.

And what exactly is this "cutting off"?

Pruning. You can look that up if you'd like.

Tormented ... tormented ... where have I heard that before. Gehenna, refuse dump ....

One possibility is that you may have read Luke 16:23

In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.

According to the gospel story, Jesus told his followers that rich people would be tormented in a "flame" in hell. Do you disagree with Jesus?

Yes. If he said that in a literal sense. Hell there is translated from the Greek hades which means grave. It really would save us time if you read my post. Jesus also said that no man had ascended to heaven except for himself, so Abraham wasn't there literally was he.

Did you know that hell is thrown into the lake of fire in Revelation?

Revelation 20:14 mentions that "Hades" was cast into the lake of fire. The writer of Revelation was personifying Hades, the abode of the dead in Greek mythology.

Hades ... hades ... where have I heard that before ...

You know all living things eventually die and stay dead? That must have required a great deal of research in the past, present and future ... or belief.

I can see that dead things stay dead. It's obvious and ubiquitous.

You've lived in a very short period of time. You can see that the sun continues to rise and set and has for far longer than you've been around but if someone tells you one day it won't you believe them? One day people wont die.

So far I'm $900 ahead of you.

I don't know about you, but many Christians no doubt have shelled out far more that $900 to their churches. A tithe being ten percent of a person's annual income would be $4,000 for anybody making $40,000 per year. That church revenue is tax free and as far as I know no church needs to disclose where that money is going.

So this easy money no doubt explains why Christians are taught to have faith and why unbelief is condemned. If people think freely, they may see through the scam.

You're preaching to the choir. I loath all organized religion. Especially Christianity for their bloodthirsty meddling in politics, tyranny, withholding the Bible, corruption, greed, child molestation, and most of all their transmogrification of the teachings of Christ by adoption of pagan myth and legend.

[DavidLeon]

Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim? In what way is skepticism regarding the claims of Christ morally wrong?

Jesus said:

If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. ..
John 12:47

So, I don’t think there is really any judgment because of disbelief. According to the Bible, judgment goes like this:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

Jesus spoke those words in a specific time in application to that time. He hadn't come to judge at that time, but later he would.

[bjs1]

Because if their kind isn't punished they'll just spread their heresy across the country; polluting and decimating the ranks of Christianity until we, the leaders of the religion, will be forced to seek gainful employment elsewhere, perhaps even dirtying our hands in the process.

Yes, money in religion as in life is almost always a motivating factor. It's unlikely that people will give money to the clergy unless those people believe that their donations to the clergy will earn them a reward from Jesus. It's Christianity's version of return on investment.

Clergy work is consistently ranked among the lowest paying jobs requiring the most work and the highest level of education. If money was a primary motivator then there is little doubt clergy workers would find employment elsewhere.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/ca ... /37490449/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 ... /40033329/

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/p ... 1-minister

[DavidLeon]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #24]

The result is based on trusting the right guy based on assertions and feelings, it correlate very well with where and when one is born, that's arbitrary in my book.

For those who are born in a place and time where the invitation hasn't been given, there will be a resurrection of the unrighteous as well as the righteous. (Acts 24:15) If the invitation has been given in the time and place in which you live and you refuse it because of other cultural interests then you've made a choice.

[DavidLeon]

Personally, I would rather burn in Hell with Gandhi, then enjoy a Heaven with a redeemed Hitler.

Well, unfortunately for you I guess, neither option is available so Gandhi isn't in hell and Hitler isn't in Heaven because hell is a pagan myth from the Biblical common grave and heaven wasn't made for humans.

[Tcg]

Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim?

They shouldn't.

In what way is skepticism regarding the claims of Christ morally wrong?

It's not.

Fortunately, it is highly unlikely that unbelievers will be punished. From all appearances we live our lives and then die never to live again. There no reason to be upset by this, it's just the natural order. Life follows death, permanent death. This is apparently true for believers and unbelievers alike.

Many humans find this idea distasteful and have thus developed myriad ideas to ignore it's likelihood. Absent this distaste for death one wonders if religion would have ever gotten off the ground.


Tcg